Lectures on
the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-
IlanUniversity
in Ramat Gan,
Israel. A
project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman
Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on
the Internet under the sponsorship of Bar-
IlanUniversity's
InternationalCenter for Jewish Identity. Prepared for
Internet Publication by the ComputerCenter Staff at Bar-IlanUniversity. Inquiries and comments to:
Dr. Isaac Gottlieb, Department of Bible, gottlii@mail.biu.ac.il

From Crisis to Tabernacle:

“Make Me a Sanctuary”

The Synagogue in Franco-Germany

Dr. Geoffrey Wolf

Department of Talmud

This week’s reading begins with the command to build the
Tabernacle:“And let them make Me a
sanctuary that I may dwell among them” (Ex. 25:8).
The Sages viewed the synagogue as an
extension of the Temple,
following the words of Ezekiel (11:6):“Say then:Thus said the Lord
G-d:I have indeed removed them far
among the nations and have scattered them among the countries and I have become
to them a diminished sanctity (= mikdashme`at) in the countries whither they have gone.”

Although the plain sense of this verse is that the Lord
will be a diminished sanctity for the people of Israel, i.e., His presence will
be felt amongst them,[1]
nevertheless the expression mikdashme`at came to be interpreted in the writings of the
Sages as synonymous with the synagogue, based on the Aramaic translation of that
verse in Ezekiel:“I gave them
synagogues instead of my Temple.”This idea
is expressed with more detail in the Babylonian Talmud, “I have become to
them a diminished sanctity:Rabbi
Isaac said:this refers to the
synagogues and houses of study in Babylonia” (
Megillah 29a).

What did the words mikdashme`at, "a miniature Temple" as it were, mean for the average
diaspora Jew throughout the generations?
To what extent did they view their time spent
in the synagogue as if they had entered a “diminished sanctuary”?

The Jews of Franco-Germany (900-1300 C.E) took the
identification of the Temple
with the synagogue to be tangible and almost literal.
For example, Rashi
held the Aramaic translation to reflect the literal sense of the text and even
reinforced the idea expressed there.In
his commentary on Ezekiel (loc. sit.) he wrote:
“The synagogues in which they sat they
likened to the Temple.”
Rabbi Joseph Qara,
among the great literal interpreters of Scripture in France, followed a similar
approach.His use of the Sages’
interpretation (which contradicts the plain sense of Scripture) is an
indication of how deeply they felt the synagogue to be identified with the Temple.

Halakhic Expression

This special attitude towards the synagogue found
expression in halakhic norms, and even more so in the customs of the Jewish
communities of Franco-Germany.For one,
the idea that the synagogue participated in the holiness of the Temple underlay the
strict adherence to the rules of purity in all that concerned women after
childbirth or during their menstrual period: they were not to enter the
synagogue before purification. This is also the reason that the priests did not
perform the priestly blessing every day, since they did not generally immerse
themselves in the mikveh beforehand.
Finally, a man who was impure after a night
pollution did not lead the prayers (shaliahtzibbur) unless he had first cleansed himself in
a ritual bath.[2]

More than anything else, the view that the synagogue had
sanctity commensurate with that of the Temple found expression in customs based
on the assumption that the Divine Presence dwelled in the synagogue as it had
in the Temple.We shall make do with
three examples:

(1) Upon entering the synagogue, people would bow, as had
been the practice in the Temple.[3]This is attested by Rabbi Judah Hassid, who
mentions it in passing:

A person cleaning the synagogue floor and taking the dirt
outside does not have to bow, for it says, “Bow down to the Lord in majestic
holiness” (Ps. 96:9).But after he has
already taken out the dirt he should bow…And as he leaves the synagogue walking backwards he must bow at the
doorway, for it is written, “He shall then bow low … on sabbaths
and new moons at the entrance of the same gate” (Ezek. 46:3).[4]

The innovation introduced by Judah Hassid was to exempt the
person cleaning the synagogue floor from the obligation of bowing.
His remarks accord with the established
custom of bowing upon entering and leaving the synagogue.
He alludes to a verse from Ezekiel as
providing the basis for this custom.The
same verse is cited in Pirkei de-Rabbi
Eliezer (a midrashic work much
used in Franco-Germany) in order to explain why one had to bow at the gates of
the Temple:

Rabbi Judah says that on the new moons and
sabbaths Israel would sit there and see the doors opening
of their own accord, and they would know that the Divine Presence was there,
for it says, “because the Lord, the G-d of Israel, has entered by it” (Ezek.
44:2).Forthwith they would bow and
prostrate themselves before the Almighty.Thus it was in the past and shall be in the future, as it is written,
“he shall bow low … on sabbaths and new moons at the
entrance of the same gate” (Ezek. 46:3).

(2) Shekhina in the
Synagoge

The Mishnah (Megillah
24b) states:“A priest whose hands have
blemishes may not raise his hands [for the priestly blessing].
Rabbi Judah says:
Moreover one whose hands are stained with
woad [a plant yielding a deep blue dye] or madder [a root
producing a red dye] may not lift up his hands because the people would gaze at
him.”According to the Tosafists, who follow
the Jerusalem Talmud in this matter, The reason for these proscriptions is that
blemishes on the hands of the priests would distract the people being blessed
from attending to the blessing.[5]

Rashi, however, interpreted this
quite differently:“Because the
people would gaze at him – it says in Hagigah
(16.1):‘Whoever looks at the priests
when they are lifting up their hands loses his eyesight, since the Divine
Presence rests on their hands.”Rashi apparently assumed that the Divine Presence itself
actually hovered over the priests’ hands, both in the synagogue and in the Temple.
Therefore it was not befitting for blemished
priests hands to serve as a place on which the Divine Presence would rest.
This interpretation, like many of
Rashi’s special interpretations, reflects the view, widespread
among the Jews of Franco-Germany, that the Divine Presence dwelled in all its
glory in the synagogue.[6]

Also Austrian Jews
sit with him [the mourner] in the synagogue courtyard, just as the Jews of the Rhineland do.He
further said that he heard from his rabbi, Maharash
(of Neustadt), that as he took leave of the mourner
he would say, “May He who caused His Name to dwell in this House comfort
you.”They asked him, “What does ‘He who
caused His Name to dwell’ have to do with our synagogue, as if to say we were
in the Temple?” ... He responded that the synagogue is like a diminished Temple.

This custom, too, originates from Pirkei
de-Rabbi Eliezer(end of ch.
17), and was noted by Ra'avyah.
Hence it can be assumed to have been in
existence at least since the early 12th century.[7]It, too, is based on the assumption that the
Divine Presence dwells in the synagogue.Substantiation for this conclusion comes from the fact that Germany
Jewry used the same phrase to console mourners as was used in the Temple:
“May He who caused His Name to dwell in this
House console you.”In other words, this
action not only recalls the Temple (
zekher le-miqdash) but
also treats the synagogue as the Temple
itself, a place where the Divine Presence actually dwells.

Such a strong sense of Divine immanence in their midst gave
the Jews of Franco-Germany a special experience when they gathered to spend
time in their houses of prayer.Their deep
and sincere faith that “wherever they were exiled, the Divine Presence was with
them” (Megillah 29a) contributed greatly to
the strength of this religious community to withstand times of trouble and
everyday tribulations.The query we saw
above addressed by the Jews of Austria to Maharash of
Neustadt in the second half of the 14th century
(“What does ‘He who caused His Name to dwell’ have to do with our synagogue?”)
marks a decline in this belief, in the wake of the great hardships experienced
by the Jews of Germany in those days, as the Jewish population shifted
eastward.Nevertheless, regarding the
diminution of the idea that the synagogue was actually the Temple in miniature, we should ask what
spiritual price did the Jews and their descendants pay for losing this belief?